Board of Education.) In return, Weldrngave gay activists carte blanche in hisrnadministration, appointing several homosexualsrnto state posts. Among themrnwas LaFontaine—who several years agornwas spotted in the periphery of an ACTrnUP protest in Boston in which homosexualrnmilitants pelted newly ordainedrnCatholic priests (and their relatives) withrncondoms as they left a church inductionrnceremony. Now LaFontaine’s activismrnis funded by the taxpayer. As the man behindrnthe “Gay Youth Pride” rally, hernlooked on like a proud uncle as studentrnafter student stood on the steps of thernState Capitol to rail against “homophobia”rnand praise Massachusetts for its “diversity.”rnAt the rally, LaFontaine and his youngrnfollowers celebrated that a full 100 Massachusettsrnhigh schools —one third ofrnthe state’s total—now have homosexualaffirmingrn”gay-straight alliance” clubs.rnHis goal: a GSA in the remaining 200rnschools in Massachusetts—most in morerntradition-minded regions of the state.rnThere will be plenty of taxpayer moneyrnto reeducate the masses. The state budgetrnfor pro-homosexual youth programsrngrew year after year under Weld. And asrna parting act, he promised LaFontaine arn$ 1 million budget to administer his “gayrnyouth” agenda next year (an amount thatrnwas ultimately approved by Weld’s successor,rnGovernor Paul Cellucci, who appearsrneven more sympathetic to the homosexualrncause than Weld). The onlyrngood news for the state’s beleagueredrnpro-family movement is that under arnparental rights law passed last year (coupledrnwith good regulations approved byrnSilber), students will likely have to tellrntheir parents of their involvement inrnGSAs, and parents will at least receivernadvance warning of pro-gay events inrntheir child’s school.rnHow far has taxpayer-funded homosexualrnpromotion gone in Massachusettsrnschools? A clue can be found in a 76-rnpage manual entitled “Gay/Straight Alliances:rnA Student Guide,” produced byrnthe Massachusetts Department of Education.rnThe publication might havernbeen written by Queer Nation, so blatantrnis its promotion of open and proud homosexualityrnfor young people. On pagernnine, students are told to “Displayrnposters in your school that educate peoplernabout homosexuality and homophobia.”rnOn page 25, the manual innocentlyrnrecommends Tony Kushner’s play.rnAngels in America, without mentioningrnthat the play is laden with crude gay sexualrnreferences and features simulatedrnsodomy and nudity (in addition torncliche-ridden leftist diatribes). On pagern26, the manual approvingly recounts arnvisit by some GSA members from NewtonrnNorth High School to three eighthgradernclasses at their former middlernschool: “The group members were exuberantrn. . . knowing that they had helpedrnto break the ignorance, silence and fearrnsurrounding issues of homophobia atrntheir alma mater.” On page 29, studentsrnare instructed how to plan “AwarenessrnDays” —the same propaganda eventsrnthat set off the Beuclers and their son.rnThe manual reprints a “sample agenda”rnfrom a 1993 “Gay and Lesbian AwarenessrnDay” at Newton South HighrnSchool, which included a workshop onrn”Transgender Issues.” Apparently inrnMassachusetts, it’s never too early to indoctrinaternstudents.rnBack in May, at the “Gay YouthrnPride” rally in Boston, the mood was festivernas an adult announced that “this is arnno-smoking, non-alcoholic event” —rnsince it was sponsored by the Health Department.rnSadly, the state’s touchingrnconcern for teen welfare does not extendrnto enlightening them on the manifoldrnrisks of homosexual behavior: syphilis,rnamebiasis, hepatitis A and B, AIDS.rnMost boys I interviewed at the rally hadrnno clue about threats to their physicalrnwell-being posed by “gay” sex practicesrn—except to mouth “safer sex”rnrhetoric about wearing a condom. Thernkids did seem to be well-versed in “gay”rnactivism, though. Andy Anello, a 17-rnyear-old junior from Canton HighrnSchool, recalled how members of hisrnGSA, called the “Rainbow Alliance,” putrnpink triangles on every student locker asrnpart of “Free Your Mind Week” at thernschool. Anello’s mind may have beenrnfree, but like many at the rally, his bodyrnbore the marks of an odd form of conformityrn—with an earring piercing his rightrneyebrow, and two on both ears. He andrnthe other GLBT? kids displayed the telltalernsigns of youthful rebellion, 90’s-style.rnNow along comes the government withrnits “gay-straight” school movement to infusernthem with homosexual ideologyrnand “pride.” It’s heady stuff for alienated,rnconfused teens looking for meaning inrntheir lives and a place to fit in.rnIt is one thing to ban abuse inrnschools —or teach students to respectrnone another and have manners. But it isrnquite another for the state to promote anrnunnatural homosexual “identity” with itsrnattendant risks as “normal” to teenagers,rnwhile shielding them from opposingrnviewpoints. And what about gay activistsrnas taxpayer-financed role models? At thernhomosexual “prom” later that evening, Irnwitnessed a spectacle that would havernmade George Orwell shudder. SterlingrnStowell, executive director of the sponsoringrnorganization, the Boston Alliancernof Gay and Lesbian Youth —and arntransvestite—was carefully guarding therndoors to City Hall to ensure that only approvedrnpress (i.e., no “homophobes”)rnand students could enter. There wasrnMr./Mrs. Stowell, decked out in a colorfulrnscarf-like gown, gaudy diamondshapedrnearrings and full makeup—servingrnas Chief Protector of the “at risk”rnschoolkids! The gays are in charge inrnMassachusetts, and I fear for the children.rnPeter LaBarbera is publisher of thernLambda Report on Homosexuality,rnwhich monitors the “gay rights” movement.rnGOVERNMENTrnReining inrnthe Fedsrnby William J. Watkins, JrrnOn June 26, 1997, the SupremernCourt dodged the constitutionalrnquestions surrounding the Line Item VetornAct. In Raines v. Byrd, the Courtrnclaimed it had no jurisdiction and dismissedrnthe complaint. Federal courtsrnonly have jurisdiction over a dispute if itrnis a “case” or “controversy.” An elementrnof the case or controversy requirement isrnthat the party bringing the suit must havernstanding, which is defined as “a personalrninjury fairly tiaceable to the defendant’srnallegedly imlawful conduct and likely tornbe redressed by the requested relief.”rnThe senators and congressmen questioningrnthe constitutionahty of the LinernItem Veto Act cited the case oi ColemanrnV. Miller, in which the Court upheldrnstanding for Kansas state legislatorsrnprotesting actions of the state’s lieutenantrngovernor. When the state senate dead-rn42/CHRONICLESrnrnrn